Talk:Dowsing

Explosive Detectors

Those so-called explosive detectors I don't think are really the same thing as dowsing, which involve locating things under the ground. If those explosive detectors constitute dowsing devices, then there's a variety of other bogus instruments that would quality, from questionable medical instruments, bug-detectors, air samplers, etc. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems that reliable sources make that connection between those explosive detectors and dowsing. If they do the same for the other bogus instruments, we can add those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources did refer to these devices as dowsing instruments, but I think this was more informal/tongue-in-cheek, or to be disparaging - similar to how financial markets are refereed to as casinos, by detractors for example, but the article for NASDAQ doesn't refer to it as such even though there's plenty of references which call it a casino. To be clear - I'm not supporting dowsing or any of these devices either way. I just don't find it to be an accurate label. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If they work the same way as dowsing rods, one would expect the sources to mention ideomotor effect or Carpenter effect. I could not find any mention of those in any of the Wikipeda articles about specific gadgets. Which could mean that you are right. Anyway, it is a bit WP:COATRACK to mention things here because someone wrote they are like dowsing rods. But maybe WP:FTN knows more. I'll ask. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The only cited source in the whole subsection to mention dowsing merely remarked, as an editorial judgement, that one device appeared as if it would work in "the same way as dowsing rods". In fact, these devices were invariably marketed as based on secret proprietary technologies. There is nothing secret or proprietary about dowsing. These devices were fraudulent not pseudoscientific. So I have deleted the whole irrelevant mess. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should look very carefully at the references and for other references that might suggest the comparison between (or identification of) these devices and dowsing devices as being DUE. --Hipal (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We must not fall into WP:OR here, we need that identification to be explicit in the source. Fraud is not pseudoscience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hipal (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The French (2013) ref appears to be useful to restore some of the material. --Hipal (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is still vague about attribution of the "similar principle to dowsing" claim. On the other hand, This news item does actually attribute it to the manufacturer. But even so, the kit was not sold as a dowsing device for use by a dowser but as a bomb detector for use by someone who may have no idea how it is supposed to work. That is not dowsing, it is fraud, and that is an unarguable legal decision, not just my opinion. It really belongs elsewhere, with maybe a "See also" link from here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

the kit was not sold as a... Irrelevant and OR. We don't dismiss claims because the subject said otherwise. The viewpoint seems DUE. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let us agree to differ. The burden is on you to properly cite every claim you reinstate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Policy is what it is. If the only arguments against inclusion we're getting are OR, PROMO, and POV violations, then there's no argument to counter, nor anyone to convince. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear me. If you think I am violating policy, take me to WP:ANI. Otherwise, don't make ill-considered accusations of impropriety - that's a policy too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't come to that. --Hipal (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Clearly something is DUE, as the two refs identified in this discussion demonstrate: [1] and [2]. Are there more we can use? --Hipal (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I found some more

• Plait, Phil (29 April 2013). "Maker of Useless Dowsing Rod for Bombs Convicted for Fraud". Slate. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
• Rhykerd, Charles L.; Hannum, David W.; Murray, Dale W.; Parmeter, John E. (September 1999). Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. pp. 71–72. NIJ Guide 100-99.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• Chang, Darius (6 November 2009). "Divining rod reborn as explosive-detection device". CNET. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
• Emerging Technology from the arXiv (24 January 2013). "Physicists Prove "Dowsing" Bomb Detectors Useless in Double Blind Trial". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
• Page, Lewis (22 January 2010). "Police arrest MD of dowsing-rod 'bomb detector' firm". The Register. Retrieved 25 February 2022.

I reckon that should be enough. By the way, I literally just searched "explosive detector dowsing". It's not like RS for this is hard to find. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say, those support the opposite case well. For example:

• "The Quadro Tracker is one notable example of this cross-over attempt. This device was advertised as being a serious technology with a realistic sounding description of how it worked (close examination showed serious errors in the scientific sounding description)"[3] - no buyer was told they were going dowsing
• The ADE 651, was sold as working via "electrostatic magnetic ion attraction."[4] or "electrostatic matching of the ionic charge and structure of the substance"[5] That is not dowsing either.

The point is, these are not being used for dowsing per se, the users are assuming a secret proprietary technology. Dowsing was only mentioned after the event, as a wriggle to try and stay out of jail. I can accept that the media flurry hooked onto dowsing often enough to need some sort of a linking-in here, but it is wholly unjustifiable to treat these things as having any real significance to the present article. Unless, of course, RS to make the earlier connection can be found. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it needs a complete rewrite, so copying below for reference: --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged the section as needing a rewrite, and asked for help at WP:FTN --Hipal (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Police and military devices

Skeptic James Randi at a lecture at Rockefeller University, on October 10, 2008, holding an $800 device advertised as a dowsing instrument

A number of devices have been marketed for modern police and military use, for example ADE 651, Sniffex, and the GT200. A US government study advised against buying "bogus explosive detection equipment" and noted that all testing has shown the devices to perform no better than random chance.

Devices:

• Sandia National Laboratories tested the MOLE Programmable System manufactured by Global Technical Ltd. of Kent, UK and found it ineffective.
• The ADE 651 is a device produced by ATSC (UK) and widely used by Iraqi police to detect explosives. The device does not work and failed to prevent many bombings in Iraq. On 23 April 2013, the director of ATSC, James McCormick was convicted of fraud by misrepresentation and later sentenced to 10 years in prison. Earlier, the British Government had announced a ban on the export of the ADE 651.
• Sniffex was the subject of a report by the United States Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal that concluded "The handheld Sniffex explosives detector does not work."
• Global Technical GT200 is a dowsing type explosive detector which contains no scientific mechanism.

References

Most of those sources do not actually mention dowsing. Some of those that do fail to identify the device concerned. So any editorial claim of relevance supported by them is unsustainable. May I suggest a drastically cut-down entry:

A number of fraudulent handheld military devices such as bomb detectors, including the ADE 651 have been claimed to work by dowsing.[ref making the specific claim and not just journo headline] This led the US National Institute of Justice to issue advice against buying equipment based on dowsing.[6]

It would probably not need its own subheading. If editors feel that the whole affair deserves fuller treatment, then it should not be in this article but elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

The problem I see is to work by dowsing. That assumes "work by dowsing" is a thing that we should present in Wikipedia's voice and doesn't violate policy when we do so. I don't think we should. The ideomoter effect is what "works". Dowsing is just a method of using the ideomotor effect where people believe the device is helping them locate something. --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Instead, we should look at what the references actually claim, and very careful with how we use Wikipedia's voice. As I already have said, comparisons to dowsing devices, or identification of these modern devices as dowsing devices seems verified and due. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Modern day devices

Xurizuri has found even more sources to use. I hope we can agree that they demonstrate significant views that should be included in this article. Let's focus on writing that article content. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Steelpillow asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Dowsing. Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have tried a new location for the subsection to see how it looks. With that, I think I have done enough here for now and should take a step back to see how things shape up. Feel free to move it back if it doesn't look right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideomotor mechanism

The lead currently states that "The motion of dowsing rods is now generally attributed to the ideomotor phenomenon, a psychological response where a subject makes motions unconsciously. Put simply, dowsing rods respond to the user's accidental or involuntary movements." and offers it as an alternative explanation to the pseudoscience. Yet I know a few dowsers, and most are adamant that this is exactly how dowsing works. Rather than trot out what dowsers believe, the sceptical alternative needs to get to grips with why invoking this universally accepted phenomenon is still regarded as pseudoscience. Obviously, it hinges on the fact that dowsers believe the involuntary muscular movement to be triggered by mystery forces (magnetism is a popular choice among them, as is some kind of psychic energy). So that is the bit which the lead - and the rest of the article - should explain and offer alternative mechanisms for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping that someone reading it may have come across a suitable RS confirming it. My comments on the need to tighten our presentation of the sceptical position are very much not OR. Some here may be happy with sloppy presentation, but I am not; it does scepticism a disservice. Of course, that depends on finding RS too....— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK the ideomotor reflex is, by definition, not triggered by some sort of external "energy" or whatever. If they claim that there is some sort of actual detection going on, then it is not the ideomotor effect. VdSV9•♫ 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think there are people who believe that the dowser is somehow clairvoyant, but the information ends up not in his conscious mind, but in the subconscious, from where it influences the rod via ideomotor effect. Bollocks, of course, and it would need a source that people think that, but it invalidates the "by definition" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Forensics

There should be at least some mention of it's being taught for forensic use per https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fictional dowsers

I just added Professor Calculus as a notable dowser. should I delete it as it is fictional, or should I just keep it?

~~~ π (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Uncited pseudoscience statement in lede

@Roxy the dog: What ref? It doesn't have one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist myself, but according to Wiki a pseudoscience makes claims to be a science but lacks the evidence to support those claims. Nowhere does the article say that dowsing claims to be a science in WP:RS. Bermicourt (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The two refs on the last para of the lead support the statement, as do the eight refs in the Pseudoscience section of the article. - Roxy the dog 18:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. However, a ref only applies to the preceding text; so if it supports the claim of the last sentence in the lede, it should be at the end of the sentence. Otherwise the sentence remains uncited.

But where does the article make the case that dowsing claims to be a science? There are lots of fields and activities that are not science and make no claim to be. They are clearly not pseudosciences. Bermicourt (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

that dowsing claims to be a science? Irrelevant. The content [7] is verified by reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In which case you're saying the definition in the lede of pseudoscience is wrong. Which means anything that is not science can potentially be labelled as pseudoscience: art, history, music, philosophy, beauty, thought, conscience. In which case pseudoscience is the same as non-science and so useless as a separate concept. But maybe that definition is right... in which case this article needs to demonstrate that dowsing claims to be science. You can't have it both ways. Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Hipal is not saying that, and all those conclusions are your own and nobody else's.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We cite them, and that is enough. It is not our job to trace the logic in the sources, and in the sources of the sources, and so on. That has already been done by more competent people. That is what makes the sources reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, read WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then there is a contradiction between the pseudoscience lede and this article. Just citing WP:RS isn't enough. Scholars frequently disagree and if there is contradiction between them, it needs to be clarified otherwise readers will be left confused. Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please point out the exact problem(s), citing the current sources and any that you propose. Otherwise this appears to be WP:OR to change the WP:POV in an article under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. You will not find a WP policy page that says contradictions between articles are not allowed. I am not saying there is a contradiction, I am saying that even if there were one, there would be no problem. This discussion is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Proponents of dowsing claim that it can be used to make predictions about the real world - that there is water/gold/oil/whatever at particular locations. That is what makes it pseudoscientific. Art, literature and so on are not science, but nobody claims that they can be used to detect where stuff is. If someone were to claim to be able to detect a gas pipeline by playing a violin, and they set up a series of dubious tests in an attempt to demonstrate this ability, that would be pseudoscientific. It wouldn't make all of music pseudoscience of course - mostly, it's about entertainment, self-expression, etc. Walking through a field with a couple of sticks as a piece of performance art, or just for fun, would not be pseudoscience - but would it still be dowsing if you weren't attempting to find something? It seems to me that dowsing is defined by the false claim that you can detect stuff with a pair of sticks - hence, it is fair to categorise it entirely as pseudoscience. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Everybody kno that a Y shaped stick is the only way, those two-sticker dowsers are frauds. - Roxy the dog 12:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is actually quite funny. The government, mining companies, military all have dowsers on their staff. Finding missing persons, finding gold, finding information you can not otherwise get in any conventional way.

Science is Imperical, testable and repeatable. Dowsing has been proven, its just hidden from the masses like all other technologies. 2605:B100:950:336E:0:0:EBED:901 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right, they are tested. And when they are, they fail miserably -> James Randi and a Dowser. --McSly (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)